the problem with Section 92(A) is that it places the adjudication of a legal dispute either in the hands of parties who are not competent to make such decisions (ISPs and telecommunications companies), or (in the approach endorsed by RIANZ' Campbell Smith) in the hands of one party to the dispute. To say this isn't ideal is putting it mildly.

This is the largest issue I have with s92a. In addition to the penalty being unduly harsh, enacting a law that requires only interested parties to implement it is madness.

I liken it to the ranchers and rustlers having at each other in the Wild West. But the modern bit-ranchers have a lot more power and a lot less at stake.

(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

"repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work" seems to me reads that one has to download/upload the same work more than once for it to kick in - will the ISPs really be keeping track of that? people accessing torrents are probably vulnerable but most music downloaders are probably exempt.

I know the intent is different - is there anyone around here who is a lawyer who would care to comment on what might be read if it came to trial

the problem with Section 92(A) is that it places the adjudication of a legal dispute either in the hands of parties who are not competent to make such decisions (ISPs and telecommunications companies), or (in the approach endorsed by RIANZ' Campbell Smith) in the hands of one party to the dispute.

I ain't no high falutin' lawyer type - but this seems so blatantly against core concepts of natural justice that I'm floored it's made it into legislation?

I spoke to a good friend who works for [insert name of large NZ Telco here] about all this, and he said that it's mainly aimed at people who upload music videos and the likes to YouToob, so as to gain some legal footing/footprint in case of needing to pass the legal buck.

He himself downloads media torrents from time to time, and says that he has no plans to curtail this anytime soon ...

On theme of what the telcos are planning - I've heard that a few ISPs have received legal advice to effect that the law is unenforceable. The feeling is that the have no intention of cutting off any customers without clear evidence, with the exception of those that would be violating their existing TOS anyway.

Frustrating that RIANZ, IMNZ and in particular APRA purport to represent the copyright holders but have no mandate from their members (apart from the record companies in RIANZ's case) to hold their current stance.

The sooner artists can find more ways to weed out the middle men in their industry the more profitable it will be for them in the new digital future.

I'm dismayed at the lack of progress we have made in new broadcast mediums such as streaming on demand and podcasting compared to Australia and the US. The industry players still have not nutted out agreements that allow traditional broadcasters to explore new ways of getting creative content to wider audiences.

So what? That's not what the legislation says. This is the kind of smug I'm-all-right-Jack complacency that really gets my goat.

Have to agree with that. Copyright holders don't need a NZ law to protect them from uploaders to YouTube (or any US based website) - they already have the DMCA.

Section 92 is designed specifically to target NZ downloaders with a complete lack of evidence, dispute process or recourse in the case of false accusation. I suggest that Chaos Buddha reeducates their friend on the realities of the situation.

Frustrating that RIANZ, IMNZ and in particular APRA purport to represent the copyright holders but have no mandate from their members (apart from the record companies in RIANZ's case) to hold their current stance.

I'll wait for someone from APRA to correct me if they're reading this, but my understanding is that APRA can and does have corporate members. They don't just represent songwriters, they represent any copyright holder. Further, voting power in APRA is a function of your copyright income from the previous year - you get one extra vote per $500 of income.

Seen from that perspective, I suspect they do in fact have a mandate from those members with voting power.

I have some sympathy for National because the mess that's the new copyright act was Tizard's. No doubt the act needed modernising, but that's no excuse for the bad law she came up with (and which National and Peter Dunne voted to pass).

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers

(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.

(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

So where's the bit that says they have to cut me off on the basis of accusation only?